Author edits best selling book due to 3 complaints from 150,000 sales

[stustaff]

This makes me feel all icky inside!

Guardian story

the change of word from twat to twit will have a big impact for me on the tone of what the charachter is saying and in what the character is.

In my mind someone who is 19 and uses the word twit as opposed to the word twat moves from being a normal 19 year old into a bit of a softy mummys boy.

Is my initial reaction to this over the top? just seems to me a retail store are in effect blackmailing an author to get a book edited and that feels wrong to me.

[igorsk]

Could be just a PR stunt.

[HarryT]

Given that the book is aimed at 10 year old children, I think this is entirely appropriate, myself. I think that I would have been among the "complainers" if I'd bought it for my 10 year old nephew and seen language like that.

[Slite]

Freedom of Speech anyone?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Given that the book is aimed at 10 year old children, I think this is entirely appropriate, myself. I think that I would have been among the "complainers" if I'd bought it for my 10 year old nephew and seen language like that.

Why? Is it just language that is bad or would you complain about the plot?

What about Diana Wynne Jones? Unacceptable for children?

I just cannot understand this mind set people have that complains about these things.

[HarryT]

It is, I think, reasonable to assume that books aimed at young children will not contain obscene language. It's not a matter of "freedom of speech", but what sort of language you'd want your own children to learn is appropriate to use. Children of that age are not in a position to judge for themselves what is, or is not, good language use - how many 10 year old are going to know what the word means, do you think? Isn't that one of the reasons that we encourage children to read, to improve their command of the language?

If you buy a children's book it's perfectly reasonable to assume that it won't contain sex scenes, strong language, extreme violence, etc, IMHO.

I have no issues with the use of such language in books aimed at an adult audience, obviously.

[Slite]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is, I think, reasonable to assume that books aimed at young children will not contain obscene language. It's not a matter of "freedom of speech", but what sort of language you'd want your own children to learn is appropriate to use. Children of that age are not in a position to judge for themselves what is, or is not, good language use - how many 10 year old are going to know what the word means, do you think? Isn't that one of the reasons that we encourage children to read, to improve their command of the language?

I have no issues with the use of such language in books aimed at an adult audience, obviously.

Actually, I think it is very much a question of "Freedom of Speech", The author choose to use that word. And it is also the choice of a parent (and yes, I am one myself) to allow or not allow your child to read, or not to read said book. To demand that a word be changed because you take offense is just plain silly.

It's just as silly to put out a sign on your street that says "Drive slowly, children at play", instead you should teach your children NOT to play in the streets. That is not what they are intended for.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Slite

Actually, I think it is very much a question of "Freedom of Speech", The author choose to use that word. And it is also the choice of a parent (and yes, I am one myself) to allow or not allow your child to read, or not to read said book. To demand that a word be changed because you take offense is just plain silly.

Do you read in advance every book that your children get their hands on to make sure that it's appropriate for them?

I'm sorry to disagree, but I think that it's perfectly reasonable to expect certain "standards" in such things as sex, strong language, violence, etc, in books aimed at young children. And I'm certainly no "prude".

There ARE standards for such things in TV (at least in the UK, no such things are permitted to be broadcast before 9pm).

[Slite]

I think we can agree that we disagree on this issue

And no, I don't read everything before them, My kids are now 18 and 20 years old. And I guess I have always believed in what did not kill them made them stronger sort of thing.

And they turned out pretty ok (I think). And I supose we may have a more relaxed kind of view on things like that in Sweden, after all. We have no "ban" on what is apropriate to send before a certain time of the day. It's up to parents to decide what you will allow your children to watch or not. Well, come to think of it, I don't think TV is allowed to air programmes with extreme violence included before 9 in the evening, but thats about it. Noone would be very upset if the swedish equivalent of the word twat was mentioned before that time.

[garygibsonsf]

Whatever a ten year old kid reads in a novel is nothing compared to what he'll hear in the schoolyard. I read a lot worse than that at that age, and I picked up a lot more from books than just how to swear; the swearing was easy. I just had to listen to how everyone around me at school talked and picked it up from there.

Mind you, I do swear like a trooper.

[dadioflex]

Edit.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by dadioflex

Once they hit their teens though I wouldn't have a problem with a reasonable amount of cursing in context.

Agreed entirely.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

...- how many 10 year old are going to know what the word means, do you think?

If they're anything like me, they'll have looked it up in the dictionary by the time they reached double figures.

[Format C:]

Beg your pardon... Can somebody explain the difference between "twat" and "twit" to me?

[HarryT]

"twat" is a very rude word for a portion of the female anatomy; it's a word that you DON'T use in "polite company" (or indeed, ever, for most people). "twit" just means "foolish" or "silly" - it's a very mild word indeed.